Giving frequent feedback
13/03/11 19:08
Giving frequent feedback
I have been always blessed with some of the strongest Advisory Boards for my business. The trick has been getting executives who are not potential customers but with great experience that my management team could be well served with. In one of those recent Advisory Board meetings a very interesting discussion came up. Which I thought is a great point of learning for me.
My management team started a discussion around how to create a very effective rewards and recognition system when you have very different kind of jobs (product development, services, sales etc).
Some of the advice we got was pretty insightful. First, most agreed that while we need to have programmatic methods, they tend to be fundamentally too broad to be effective.
Instead, the push was to understand that if employees are clamoring for more rewards and recognition from management/leadership, there is a larger message here. The organization is saying that the feedback mechanism is not often enough or strong enough.
In other words, if employees were to very often get feedback on (*) how what they are doing aligns to the larger plan for the organization (*) what they are doing well and (*) what course correction is required, their sense of alignment, contribution and participation would solve the root cause of the problem why they feel they are not being recognized.
It was also felt that this forum should give the employee an opportunity to give quick feedback to the manager on what the manager needs to provide/do to help the employee achieve his/her goals.
One board member talked about a 10-10 practice. Every two weeks he makes himself and all managers in his group sit with all direct reports for a 10 minute discussion on giving feedback – 20 minutes either way as described in the two preceding paragraphs.
Another member talked about a variation of the same being practiced in the whole company (large strategy consulting company).
That was a pretty interesting learning for me. Understanding the root cause of why employees feel they are not being rewarded or recognized enough.
Worthwhile idea to copy.
Do you have any experience on this? What has worked? What has not?
Rajib
I have been always blessed with some of the strongest Advisory Boards for my business. The trick has been getting executives who are not potential customers but with great experience that my management team could be well served with. In one of those recent Advisory Board meetings a very interesting discussion came up. Which I thought is a great point of learning for me.
My management team started a discussion around how to create a very effective rewards and recognition system when you have very different kind of jobs (product development, services, sales etc).
Some of the advice we got was pretty insightful. First, most agreed that while we need to have programmatic methods, they tend to be fundamentally too broad to be effective.
Instead, the push was to understand that if employees are clamoring for more rewards and recognition from management/leadership, there is a larger message here. The organization is saying that the feedback mechanism is not often enough or strong enough.
In other words, if employees were to very often get feedback on (*) how what they are doing aligns to the larger plan for the organization (*) what they are doing well and (*) what course correction is required, their sense of alignment, contribution and participation would solve the root cause of the problem why they feel they are not being recognized.
It was also felt that this forum should give the employee an opportunity to give quick feedback to the manager on what the manager needs to provide/do to help the employee achieve his/her goals.
One board member talked about a 10-10 practice. Every two weeks he makes himself and all managers in his group sit with all direct reports for a 10 minute discussion on giving feedback – 20 minutes either way as described in the two preceding paragraphs.
Another member talked about a variation of the same being practiced in the whole company (large strategy consulting company).
That was a pretty interesting learning for me. Understanding the root cause of why employees feel they are not being rewarded or recognized enough.
Worthwhile idea to copy.
Do you have any experience on this? What has worked? What has not?
Rajib
|
Keeping calm under fire
23/05/10 22:21 Filed in: Management
When under fire, stay calm
Some of the leaders that I have admired most have had the ability to not only stay calm under stress, but continually be outright positive. And these leaders have been across all levels of an organization. Because they have been across all levels, I think this is more of a personality trait than something one necessarily acquires as they go up. However, I have no reason to believe that one cannot strive to be so, even if it does not come naturally.
Stress gets created when the observable results are at variance with what is desired. As organizational behavior will teach you, if that accountability comes without commensurate authority, that exacerbates the personal stress.
In today’s corporate environment (most of it at least), the demand for short term accountability is extremely high. The tolerance for failure – regardless of all high words of risk taking capability – is getting narrower and narrower. A lot of this is derived not necessarily from within the organization but the tough competitive environment and the fact that business is moving at lightning speed.
One unfortunate outcome is that when a perceived failure happens, the organization demands quick answers. Quick answers, no doubt, lead to simplistic conclusions. Add the tendency to arrive at simplistic conclusions and the above discussed tolerance for failure – and that leads to another dangerous behavior – finger pointing. This is derived from a deep rooted human tendency – “I am better than others; what I control performs better than something that I do not control.”
Finally, average human being finds it more convenient to name a person as the reason for failure than understand the true nuances of processes and constraints. First, it is easier, it is more convenient and it is something most people can relate to. Person A is an idiot – Ah! I get that. The complexity of understanding constraints – some written and some not written – some internal some external – that starts becoming too complex for us This leads to a missed opportunity to drive true learnings for the organization.
Leaders have to be doubly vigilant not to fall into this pattern of behavior. Any organization learns quickly from the top. As human beings, we all want to be leaders. In reality, we all want to be led. We copy behavior from the top very fast – perhaps believing that compliance will lead to success. In the process, we amplify the behavior at the top.
Any sign of panic on the top and the dissonance in the org below – like a bunch of dispersed ants - is immediately visible. Any signs of finger pointing from the top and immediately the organization takes a cue.
A true leader needs to address issues from the position of poise and even handedness. A calming sense needs to pervade in the organization that is under stress. Giving the entire troop a sense of purpose that they are all in it together is of paramount importance. Regardless of the level of stress, they will need to stick together and emerge successful.
But above all be aware that this is just one more hurdle of many more to come in one’s career. Crossing hurdles require cool-headed thinking and an aura of positivity around oneself.
So how many such cool-headed leaders have you seen? I have been fortunate enough to see a few in my life.
Some of the leaders that I have admired most have had the ability to not only stay calm under stress, but continually be outright positive. And these leaders have been across all levels of an organization. Because they have been across all levels, I think this is more of a personality trait than something one necessarily acquires as they go up. However, I have no reason to believe that one cannot strive to be so, even if it does not come naturally.
Stress gets created when the observable results are at variance with what is desired. As organizational behavior will teach you, if that accountability comes without commensurate authority, that exacerbates the personal stress.
In today’s corporate environment (most of it at least), the demand for short term accountability is extremely high. The tolerance for failure – regardless of all high words of risk taking capability – is getting narrower and narrower. A lot of this is derived not necessarily from within the organization but the tough competitive environment and the fact that business is moving at lightning speed.
One unfortunate outcome is that when a perceived failure happens, the organization demands quick answers. Quick answers, no doubt, lead to simplistic conclusions. Add the tendency to arrive at simplistic conclusions and the above discussed tolerance for failure – and that leads to another dangerous behavior – finger pointing. This is derived from a deep rooted human tendency – “I am better than others; what I control performs better than something that I do not control.”
Finally, average human being finds it more convenient to name a person as the reason for failure than understand the true nuances of processes and constraints. First, it is easier, it is more convenient and it is something most people can relate to. Person A is an idiot – Ah! I get that. The complexity of understanding constraints – some written and some not written – some internal some external – that starts becoming too complex for us This leads to a missed opportunity to drive true learnings for the organization.
Leaders have to be doubly vigilant not to fall into this pattern of behavior. Any organization learns quickly from the top. As human beings, we all want to be leaders. In reality, we all want to be led. We copy behavior from the top very fast – perhaps believing that compliance will lead to success. In the process, we amplify the behavior at the top.
Any sign of panic on the top and the dissonance in the org below – like a bunch of dispersed ants - is immediately visible. Any signs of finger pointing from the top and immediately the organization takes a cue.
A true leader needs to address issues from the position of poise and even handedness. A calming sense needs to pervade in the organization that is under stress. Giving the entire troop a sense of purpose that they are all in it together is of paramount importance. Regardless of the level of stress, they will need to stick together and emerge successful.
But above all be aware that this is just one more hurdle of many more to come in one’s career. Crossing hurdles require cool-headed thinking and an aura of positivity around oneself.
So how many such cool-headed leaders have you seen? I have been fortunate enough to see a few in my life.
Time Management
15/11/09 12:41 Filed in: Management
Time Management
I am not going to bore you by telling you why time management is important and all that. I suspect enough books have been written on this topic. (I always have wondered though how people focused on effective time management are supposed to read up all those books on effective time management J ). Instead, let me tell you a couple of observations on some of the executives that I have learnt from.
First – and this might surprise you – what to spend time on differs vastly from executive to executive (and I have filtered the ones that I consider are very successful). Some spend lot more time on understanding the details – some prefer to drive the strategy. Some spend more time with their directs, some spend less. Some consider spending time with employees after work improper time of their work and some make it a point to do so. Regardless of the usual story of “balance” and “do both” and all that, my observation is that the successful executives – knowingly or unknowingly choose what they want to spend time on. And usually this differs from one executive to another.
Second – and this will not surprise you – they are very disciplined about managing their time with the choices that they have made above. It is very easy to fill up one’s calendar – especially as you go up the hierarchy. There is always some crisis, there is always an important customer, there is always an important presentation and so on and so forth. The ones that I admire most have struck me with their ability to say “No” and question why they are getting involved in things that they should not. That is undoubtedly a common thread between successful executives.
Third – and this is more empirical evidence than I have taken the time to observe in detail – it seems that some amount of ability to compartmentalize your time and thoughts is important to be able to succeed. Some of the best ones had an uncanny knack of being able to switch gears yet grasp the “linking points” when they existed.
Finally – there is no correlation as I have seen between success and how much time some of the best executives spend on work. There are the ones who are absolutely obsessed with spending as much time as they can on work related items and there are the ones who draw boundaries and stick to them. While it is very difficult to compare two executives since they tend to differ so much from one another, I can definitely make the following observation thinking thru all the great executives I got close to – customers, partners and employers: In the longer term, the differences they made to their companies was very little to do with how much time was spent but a lot more to do with what they did with their time.
I am sure you will have something to share with me on this…
I am not going to bore you by telling you why time management is important and all that. I suspect enough books have been written on this topic. (I always have wondered though how people focused on effective time management are supposed to read up all those books on effective time management J ). Instead, let me tell you a couple of observations on some of the executives that I have learnt from.
First – and this might surprise you – what to spend time on differs vastly from executive to executive (and I have filtered the ones that I consider are very successful). Some spend lot more time on understanding the details – some prefer to drive the strategy. Some spend more time with their directs, some spend less. Some consider spending time with employees after work improper time of their work and some make it a point to do so. Regardless of the usual story of “balance” and “do both” and all that, my observation is that the successful executives – knowingly or unknowingly choose what they want to spend time on. And usually this differs from one executive to another.
Second – and this will not surprise you – they are very disciplined about managing their time with the choices that they have made above. It is very easy to fill up one’s calendar – especially as you go up the hierarchy. There is always some crisis, there is always an important customer, there is always an important presentation and so on and so forth. The ones that I admire most have struck me with their ability to say “No” and question why they are getting involved in things that they should not. That is undoubtedly a common thread between successful executives.
Third – and this is more empirical evidence than I have taken the time to observe in detail – it seems that some amount of ability to compartmentalize your time and thoughts is important to be able to succeed. Some of the best ones had an uncanny knack of being able to switch gears yet grasp the “linking points” when they existed.
Finally – there is no correlation as I have seen between success and how much time some of the best executives spend on work. There are the ones who are absolutely obsessed with spending as much time as they can on work related items and there are the ones who draw boundaries and stick to them. While it is very difficult to compare two executives since they tend to differ so much from one another, I can definitely make the following observation thinking thru all the great executives I got close to – customers, partners and employers: In the longer term, the differences they made to their companies was very little to do with how much time was spent but a lot more to do with what they did with their time.
I am sure you will have something to share with me on this…
Outlook for a Top Executive
31/10/09 23:37 Filed in: Management
What should be the outlook for a top executive?
The other day, I had a pretty engrossing breakfast meeting with a top executive of a large public company. It was engrossing because we started debating – what turned out to be a really interesting - topic. I would love to hear your views on this.
The central question was – What should be the perspective that a top executive in a company should have? That he/she is going to be in the company for a long time? Or that he/she is going to be around for some stipulated period of time (say 5-6 years)?
As we debated, we found a lot of pros and cons on both sides. Presumably, the executive has shown somewhere in the resume that he/she has held at least one job for a pretty long time (8-12 years, say). So, that, at least proves that he/she is not a job hopper or that he/she bailed out everytime the wind blew unfavorably.
After that what?
If the executive joins the company thinking “I will be here for 5-6 years. I need to bring in the maximum effect I possibly can in that time”, the advantage is that
(*) the executive will have a certain level of impatience that is required to continuously push the organization
(*) will have little sense of job protection and is therefore probably not going to be too shy of picking battles
(*) just like a doctor’s advise “you will die in 2 years” quickly sets priorities in one’s life, a sense of “end date” will push the executive to focus on the right priorities
On the other hand,
(*) the executive might come across as being “not loyal” to the company or the cause
Let’s take another executive who joins the company with the assumption he/she will be there for the long haul (or even retire from the company). Chances are that the executive
(*) will be more patient about bringing some larger changes which inherently take a long time (especially if they require culture change in the company)
(*) will be valued as loyal to the cause of the company and
(*) inherently will be interested in learning different aspects of the company (with the assumption that he/she will see a career path thru various different positions in the company)
On the flip side,
(*) a sense of job preservation may drive the executive to acquiesce/avoid uncomfortable decisions/situations
The truth is most executives overestimate their ability to drive what their “end date” will be (more often than not , I have seen companies drive this calendar for them). Still, it would be interesting to understand from the company and the individual’s point of view what would be the right strategy under what circumstances.
Most importantly, the question is what perspective should they have? In reality, they may land up staying longer or shorter depending upon many other variables.
In an interesting twist to the debate, we also wondered, if we were the CEO of the company, which kind of executives would we hire? For what kind of positions?
Thoughts?
The other day, I had a pretty engrossing breakfast meeting with a top executive of a large public company. It was engrossing because we started debating – what turned out to be a really interesting - topic. I would love to hear your views on this.
The central question was – What should be the perspective that a top executive in a company should have? That he/she is going to be in the company for a long time? Or that he/she is going to be around for some stipulated period of time (say 5-6 years)?
As we debated, we found a lot of pros and cons on both sides. Presumably, the executive has shown somewhere in the resume that he/she has held at least one job for a pretty long time (8-12 years, say). So, that, at least proves that he/she is not a job hopper or that he/she bailed out everytime the wind blew unfavorably.
After that what?
If the executive joins the company thinking “I will be here for 5-6 years. I need to bring in the maximum effect I possibly can in that time”, the advantage is that
(*) the executive will have a certain level of impatience that is required to continuously push the organization
(*) will have little sense of job protection and is therefore probably not going to be too shy of picking battles
(*) just like a doctor’s advise “you will die in 2 years” quickly sets priorities in one’s life, a sense of “end date” will push the executive to focus on the right priorities
On the other hand,
(*) the executive might come across as being “not loyal” to the company or the cause
Let’s take another executive who joins the company with the assumption he/she will be there for the long haul (or even retire from the company). Chances are that the executive
(*) will be more patient about bringing some larger changes which inherently take a long time (especially if they require culture change in the company)
(*) will be valued as loyal to the cause of the company and
(*) inherently will be interested in learning different aspects of the company (with the assumption that he/she will see a career path thru various different positions in the company)
On the flip side,
(*) a sense of job preservation may drive the executive to acquiesce/avoid uncomfortable decisions/situations
The truth is most executives overestimate their ability to drive what their “end date” will be (more often than not , I have seen companies drive this calendar for them). Still, it would be interesting to understand from the company and the individual’s point of view what would be the right strategy under what circumstances.
Most importantly, the question is what perspective should they have? In reality, they may land up staying longer or shorter depending upon many other variables.
In an interesting twist to the debate, we also wondered, if we were the CEO of the company, which kind of executives would we hire? For what kind of positions?
Thoughts?
Customer first or Innovation first?
10/05/09 21:41 Filed in: Management
Customer or Innovation?
I realize the apparent implication of the subject line - that you have to choose between customer or innovation makes little sense - in fact, they are inextricably intertwined. All innovation needs to be driven for the customers and preferably with the customers. In fact, I have often held the belief that most innovation happens at the edges of the system. (where your system and the customer
system intersect).
That said, imagine that you have just taken over a team or division or company and you realize that there is a grounds up rebuilding of culture you need to do. Across most industries, most companies and most teams, it is safe to say customer focus and growth thru innovation are going to be two of a few underpinnings on which you are likely to rebuild your organization.
If you have tried culture changes in any large situations, you also know the danger of pushing too many levers at the same time. Culture change is less about words, powerpoints and dashboards - and more about sustained example setting, public reward and penalty system and above all driving clarity on why change. Such efforts require both focus and perseverance.
Where would you put your relatively larger focus on - make the organization customer focused and enable innovation to happen thru that or put larger focus on accentuating growth thru innovation and use the customer as the litmus test thru the process?
I first faced this problem thirteen years back when I had to rebuild up a whole technology organization which had to fight the inertia of the existing players (who had been successful for some period of time). While it is dangerous to draw generalizations, I have tilted towards focusing on building the customer oriented culture first. And innovation was an inevitable result (needed work and processes to channelize it though). I will probably do the same again.
Thoughts?
I realize the apparent implication of the subject line - that you have to choose between customer or innovation makes little sense - in fact, they are inextricably intertwined. All innovation needs to be driven for the customers and preferably with the customers. In fact, I have often held the belief that most innovation happens at the edges of the system. (where your system and the customer
system intersect).
That said, imagine that you have just taken over a team or division or company and you realize that there is a grounds up rebuilding of culture you need to do. Across most industries, most companies and most teams, it is safe to say customer focus and growth thru innovation are going to be two of a few underpinnings on which you are likely to rebuild your organization.
If you have tried culture changes in any large situations, you also know the danger of pushing too many levers at the same time. Culture change is less about words, powerpoints and dashboards - and more about sustained example setting, public reward and penalty system and above all driving clarity on why change. Such efforts require both focus and perseverance.
Where would you put your relatively larger focus on - make the organization customer focused and enable innovation to happen thru that or put larger focus on accentuating growth thru innovation and use the customer as the litmus test thru the process?
I first faced this problem thirteen years back when I had to rebuild up a whole technology organization which had to fight the inertia of the existing players (who had been successful for some period of time). While it is dangerous to draw generalizations, I have tilted towards focusing on building the customer oriented culture first. And innovation was an inevitable result (needed work and processes to channelize it though). I will probably do the same again.
Thoughts?